Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aldol reaction/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: WikiProject Chemistry
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because, I think this article doesn't fit the criteria anymore. There's a lot paragraphs or sentence need additional footnotes, I list some problems at talk page 2 weeks before, but still didn't saw anything happen. Consider this article are already been featured for more than 8 years, I think is time to have a good review here. FAC nominator was not active since early June 2007.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Obviously written by a knowledgeable editor, but woefully lacking citations and reads very much like it was written closely from a textbook. Needs a lot of attention from a subject matter expert. --Laser brain (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On a quick skim, I don't see anything in here up to the modern methods section that couldn't be cited to a good textbook on the subject. All the specific numbers, selectivities, etc. in the images might be a challenge. The tone of the prose is a little overly didactic but I think that wasn't uncommon in technical articles at the time this was promoted; I wrote most of (since-defeatured) sequence alignment around then and it took a similar approach. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review mostly concerned referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Tagged as needing additional references in March 2015. Tagged for vague or ambiguous prose in April 2011. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist this just does not meet modern standards for verifiability. Maralia (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: inappropriate tone, too many pictures, and lack of references.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Way off current standards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.